10 Feb 2023
The court exercised its discretion within established High Court rules principles and awarded the appellant actual legal aid costs of $5,761.51 rather than higher scale 2B costs; wider policy aims of incentivising legal aid providers do not justify departing from principled costs assessment.
11 Jun 2015
The court found that the debtor's repeated defaults, delays, failures to comply with directions and conduct that caused unnecessary costs constituted exceptional circumstances under s45(3); having regard to her means and prior interim award the court ordered the debtor to contribute $1,600 in total (inclusive of the $800 interim award and disbursements), leaving a balance of $800 to be paid.
24 Feb 2015
The Court held the High Court erred in awarding $10,000 public law damages to Van Essen and in awarding indemnity costs to the investigators and to the claimants beyond the commencement of trial. The searches were unlawful due to flaws in the warrants but did not amount to bad faith; remedial action (internal review and IPCA) and lack of evidence of actual exposure of intimate material meant declarations (not monetary compensation) were adequate for Patterson and, on balance, for Van Essen. Investigators are protected from tortious liability by s27 Crimes Act but statutory immunity does not i…
14 Jun 2011
The inquiry into exceptional circumstances under s40(2) is confined to conduct in the particular appeal proceedings; no conduct in the appeal or leave application caused unnecessary cost or constituted an unreasonable pursuit of issues so as to meet the high threshold of exceptional circumstances, therefore no costs ordered against the legally aided appellant (but for s40(2) costs of $9,024 on category 2B would have been awarded).
30 Jul 2009
The plaintiff produced no evidence that the defendant assumed liability for contracts with CP Ships (UK) Ltd; corporate records and defendant evidence established separate legal entities; accordingly the plaintiff had no prospect of success and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and the judge declined to exercise discretion to order costs against the aided plaintiff under s 40.
16 Jul 2008
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding Judge Ryan properly exercised his discretion under s82(1) to refuse interim spousal maintenance because the evidence was inadequate, conflicted and required testing at a substantive hearing; delay and lack of supporting documentation justified refusal.